Judgement

Appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court (April 28, 1910) affirming a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge at Manbhum (November 25, 1907).

The question for determination in the appeal was whether a patni lease granted by the manager of an incumbered estate administered under the Chota Nagpur Incumbered Estates Act, 1876, had received the sanction of the Commissioner, required by r. 16 of the rules made under s. 19 of that Act.

The patni lease in question was dated June 29, 1890, and was granted to Robert Watson & Co.,

1 Law Rep. 42 Ind. App. 97 ( 1914- 1915) Ramkanai Singh Deb Darpashaha V. Mathewson

12

Limited, under the circumstances stated in their Lordships judgment. The grantees of the lease had conveyed their rights thereunder to the first respondent. In 1905 the estate was released from the operation of Act VI. of 1876, and the present appellants subsequently instituted the suit, claiming a declaration that the patni lease was invalid, and possession.

The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit, holding that the patni lease had been duly sanctioned.

The High Court (Woodroffe and Richardson JJ.), by its judgment delivered on April 28, 1910, affirmed this decision.

Upjohn, K.C., and Dunne, for the appellants. The sanction of the Commissioner is a condition precedent to the validity of the lease under r. 16 of the rules made under s. 19 of the Act of 1876. The rules appear in the Court of Wards Manual, 1897, at p. 200. The correspondence relied on did not show that the Commissioner sanctioned the terms of the patni lease granted, but that he contemplated the grant of a patni lease in the terms of the existing ijara lease. The full details should have been sanctioned by the Commissioner. The decision in Gulabsingh v. Seth Gokuldas (1) is distinguishable. The enactment there in question was s. 18 of the Central Provinces Wards Act (XVII. of 1885), under which the sanction required is that of the Chief Commissioner, who could not be expected to consider the whole details. In any case the sanction in the present case was insufficient since it only referred to the grant of a patni lease to R. Watson & Co., an unincorporated firm, whereas the lease was granted to Robert Watson & Co., Limited. The identity of the patnidars was a material particular since they would remain liable for the performance of the covenants even if the lease was assigned.

De Gruyther, K.C., and Sir W. Garth, for the respondents. The correspondence establishes that the Commissioner sanctioned all the essential features of the transaction. It was not necessary that the actual lease granted should be produced to the Commissioner for his sanction. The decision in Gulabsingh v. Seth Gokuldas (( 1913) L. R. 40 Ind. Ap. 117.) is not distinguishable in principle and applies to this case. The fact that the proposed patnidars had been incorporated as a limited company was known to the Commissioner, and it is to be inferred that the sanction given was to grant the lease to the limited company although the Commissioner refers to them by their unincorporated title.

Upjohn K.C, replied.

The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

LORD SHAW OF DUNFERMLINE. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Bengal, dated April 28, 1910, affirming a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Manbhum, dated November 25, 1907, dismissing the suit with costs. The main object of the suit was to obtain a declaration of the nullity of a patni lease dated June 29, 1890. The other demands in the plaint were consequential upon such a declaration of nullity being obtained. The only question argued in the appeal was whether the patni lease was ultra vires and invalid.

The facts are briefly these. The first appellant, the plaintiff, is the son and successor of the late Raja Broja Kishore Singh Deb Darpashaha, the owner of the Barabhum estate. In 1883 the Raja borrowed Rs.60,000 from Messrs. Robert Watson & Co. on a mortgage of his es